Carriefans members living in the UK and the upcoming referendum in Scotland

Not sure how many of us live in the UK, but there is a certain number I know. Faraway Hills and Louisa Jessie are some of the most active Brits here.

A referendum on Scotland's independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is scheduled to be held on September 18th.

Scotland, known as Alba in Gaelic, was an independence kingdom until England and Scotland were united as the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 in the reign of Queen Anne.
England and Scotland shared the same 7 monarchs between 1603 and 1707, James VI of Scotland and I of England, Charles I, Charles II, James VII of Scotland and II of England, William II of Scotland and III of England, Mary II and Anne.
The Kingdom of Great Britain has been succeeded by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801 and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927.

Only the people of Scotland will vote in the referendum, but the UK Government will abide by the result. I think that's the right way to go about it. If they do vote for Independence, they will still have the Queen as head of state, and they still hope to be a separate member of the European Union. Some doubt has been cast on whether they will be able to remain a member without reapplying, and the Treasury have also cast doubts on their plans to keep the pound in a currency union - but I think that is largely scare tactics. If they do vote for Independence, it would make sense to maintain close trading and cross border links, and I think that a mutual relationship would quickly be established. (As it is, Ireland is independent, but we can still visit Ireland without passports, Irish people living here can register to vote, and Ireland kept the pound for many years, though they no longer do - something similar would probably happen with an independent Scotland)

I'm not Scottish, so I don't feel qualified to give an opinion - it's a choice they should make themselves. Only the Scottish Nationalists (led by Alec Salmond, who is currently the First Minister) want independence - the other parties want to maintain the Union. The Scottish Nationalists currently form the administration, but that doesn't mean they would necessarily win the referendum vote.

At present, of course, Scotland, as well as having its own Parliament, is also represented in the Union Parliament. For the rest of us, that does have a potentially big political implication. Labour (the current opposition - probably best known to most Americans as being the party recently led by Tony Blair, an important US ally in the Iraq crisis) depend on the Scottish seats to help them form a future government. Without those seats, it's likely that England would have an in-built Conservative (Tory) majority - large swathes of rural England typically vote Conservative, with Labour more dependent on Scottish and Welsh seats to add to its English vote, which is mainly concentrated in the cities. Hence, if Scotland leaves the Union, the political balance would change significantly.

One interesting sideline to the referendum is that 16 and 17 year olds will be able to vote for the first time - the Scottish government argue that as the vote effects their future, and is the only such vote likely to be held for at least a generation, they should be given a voice.

(As for the question of "British", I think people vary quite a bit in how far they find that term natural. I don't use it much - I would say "English" if people asked me what my nationality was. I'd use "UK" more formally, but I'd see "Great Britain" as mainly a geographical term for the biggest island. However, people do use all these terms, largely as a matter of personal choice)

Don't live in that part of the world but you forgot to put the I thought Scotland was already an independent country option for those of us not good in geography.

You are confusing it with Ireland (outside of Northern Ireland), which has gained its independence in 1916 in the midst of the First World War.

Scotland could be argued in some sense an independent country in the sense that it has its own parliament, own head of state, and I think in the legal sense a separated country. Unlike Wales, it was not annexed by conquest, and the monarch was actually a Scottish one first - Queen Elizabeth I died without an heir, and the son of Mary, Queen of Scot, James I (who already was the King of Scot), had the best claim to the throne and obtained it that way. (Ironically, Mary was killed by Elizabeth, and of course Elizabeth herself got to the throne overcoming another Mary (Bloody Mary) herself.)

(As for the question of "British", I think people vary quite a bit in how far they find that term natural. I don't use it much - I would say "English" if people asked me what my nationality was. I'd use "UK" more formally, but I'd see "Great Britain" as mainly a geographical term for the biggest island. However, people do use all these terms, largely as a matter of personal choice)

The terms are not actually interchangeable though, and have evolved from their original meaning. Great Britain does refer to the island itself, but Northern Irish could call themselves British despite not being on the island (and Irish wouldn't call themselves that despite being on one of the British Isle). A problem with the term United Kingdom would be that it does not include Channel Islanders - they are not a part of the UK but for all intents and purposes they are administered the same. Therefore, it is actually the most appropriate to use the term British than UK.

You are confusing it with Ireland (outside of Northern Ireland), which has gained its independence in 1916 in the midst of the First World War.

Scotland could be argued in some sense an independent country in the sense that it has its own parliament, own head of state, and I think in the legal sense a separated country. Unlike Wales, it was not annexed by conquest, and the monarch was actually a Scottish one first - Queen Elizabeth I died without an heir, and the son of Mary, Queen of Scot, James I (who already was the King of Scot), had the best claim to the throne and obtained it that way. (Ironically, Mary was killed by Elizabeth, and of course Elizabeth herself got to the throne overcoming another Mary (Bloody Mary) herself.)

What a good clarification!

Wales had been annexed by the Kingdom of England before the UK was founded. The former Kingdom of England is not only England but also England and Wales. Nowadays Wales is a country like England and Scotland but English law is used in both England and Wales. Some Welsh clubs are eligible to compete in the English football league system. Scotland is also a country but it is granted a more significant level of autonomy.

Country refers to a historical nation, rather than an independent country in this context.
The UK is not a federation. A country of the UK does not have as many rights as a US state does.

Wales had been annexed by the Kingdom of England before the UK was founded. The former Kingdom of England is not only England but also England and Wales. Nowadays Wales is a country like England and Scotland but English law is used in both England and Wales. Some Welsh clubs are eligible to compete in the English football league system. Scotland is also a country but it is granted a more significant level of autonomy.

Country refers to a historical nation, rather than an independent country in this context.
The UK is not a federation. A country of the UK does not have as many rights as a US state does.

Is Hong Kong more autonomous than any country of the UK?

I don't understand why Wales wasn't altogether annexed into England tbf. They had every chance to do that, and now they are even reviving the Welsh language.

Hong Kong has a different government, different constitution, different sets of laws, different elected officials, different spoken language, different written language, different official languages, different currency, different juridical systems, different passport, etc from mainland China. Mainlanders need visas to get into Hong Kong, Hong Kong Chinese need to apply for a special 'passport' to go into mainland China (non-Chinese Hongkongers will always need to apply for a visa), and we are separated regarding all financial matters such as taxation and reserve. Chinese laws do not apply to Hong Kong, nor do the policies. We even have something like a mainland Chinese 'embassy' in Hong Kong. In fact, some of our elected legislators have been refused entry to mainland China.

Legally mainland China has all the diplomatic rights and they have the right to 'interpret' our de facto constitution (Basic Law), but not an appeal court.

But in reality they do have a lot of economic influence and political power. They are now trying to stall the democratic development as they do have non-generally elected seats in our Legislative Council.

Hong Kong has a different government, different constitution, different sets of laws, different elected officials, different spoken language, different written language, different official languages, different currency, different juridical systems, different passport, etc from mainland China. Mainlanders need visas to get into Hong Kong, Hong Kong Chinese need to apply for a special 'passport' to go into mainland China (non-Chinese Hongkongers will always need to apply for a visa), and we are separated regarding all financial matters such as taxation and reserve. Chinese laws do not apply to Hong Kong, nor do the policies. We even have something like a mainland Chinese 'embassy' in Hong Kong. In fact, some of our elected legislators have been refused entry to mainland China.

Legally mainland China has all the diplomatic rights and they have the right to 'interpret' our de facto constitution (Basic Law), but not an appeal court.

But in reality they do have a lot of economic influence and political power. They are now trying to stall the democratic development as they do have non-generally elected seats in our Legislative Council.

That's so good to know a lot of new things about Hong Kong's legislation. Thank you

Originally Posted by clh_hilary

I don't understand why Wales wasn't altogether annexed into England tbf. They had every chance to do that, and now they are even reviving the Welsh language.

Not sure if my thought is correct but I'm going to give you it.

There were 2 kingdoms on Great Britain until the foundation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, the Kingdom of Scotland (Scotland) and the Kingdom of England (England and Wales). In 1707, both kingdoms were dissolved and replaced with the Kingdom of Great Britain. England and Wales, 2 parts of the former Kingdom of England, became parts of the new kingdom besides Scotland.
Wales is still part of an England. This England is not the country of England, but the United Kingdom, the successor of the Kingdom of England.

A country of the UK refers to a historical nation, rather than an independence country.
Scotland and England were kingdoms until 1707, therefore, both are historical nations.
Wales used to be an independent principality until it was conquered by the Kingdom of England. It is a historical nation as well.

Cornwall used to be a duchy. Some Cornish people have called for Cornwall's recognition as a country

There were 2 kingdoms on Great Britain until the foundation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707, the Kingdom of Scotland (Scotland) and the Kingdom of England (England and Wales). In 1707, both kingdoms were dissolved and replaced with the Kingdom of Great Britain. England and Wales, 2 parts of the former Kingdom of England, became parts of the new kingdom besides Scotland.
Wales is still part of an England. This England is not the country of England, but the United Kingdom, the successor of the Kingdom of England.

A country of the UK refers to a historical nation, rather than an independence country.
Scotland and England were kingdoms until 1707, therefore, both are historical nations.
Wales used to be an independent principality until it was conquered by the Kingdom of England. It is a historical nation as well.

Cornwall used to be a duchy. Some Cornish people have called for Cornwall's recognition as a country

But that doesn't really answer my question. They could have just called Wales a new part of England from the get-go and they do have boundary disputes for some reason. Prussia invaded other principality to create Germany, and you don't seem them still having a 'Prussia' somewhere. The same goes to Russia, Italy, and most other country.

Some parts of Wales were directly annexed by Henry VIII in the C16 - mainly Monmouthshire, which was treated legally as an English County, and border areas around Oswestry, which were added to Shropshire. The status of Monmouthshire was, however, always ambiguous, and in some respects continued to be treated as part of Wales. It has since been formally returned to Wales, and is now called Gwent. The other areas have not been returned, and are unlikely to be. (Some isolated pockets of territory on either side of the border were tidied up in 1844.)

The reason the Tudors (who were partly of Welsh origin) did not fully integrate Wales into England was probably connected with the difficulties of extending central government to peripheral areas. Lancaster, Cheshire and Durham all had separate Palatine courts, and other royal functions in England were delegated to Councils of the North and the Marches. An added issue was the Welsh language - much stronger at the time. The government of Elizabeth I began the process that led to the demise of the Cornish language, by refusing to allow a separate Prayer Book in Cornish. However, Cornwall was much smaller , and a similar policy would have been impractical in Wales at the time. As it was, the religious situation developed rather differently in Wales, and at the time, religion played a major role in defining national identity.

Some parts of Wales were directly annexed by Henry VIII in the C16 - mainly Monmouthshire, which was treated legally as an English County, and border areas around Oswestry, which were added to Shropshire. The status of Monmouthshire was, however, always ambiguous, and in some respects continued to be treated as part of Wales. It has since been formally returned to Wales, and is now called Gwent. The other areas have not been returned, and are unlikely to be. (Some isolated pockets of territory on either side of the border were tidied up in 1844.)

The reason the Tudors (who were partly of Welsh origin) did not fully integrate Wales into England was probably connected with the difficulties of extending central government to peripheral areas. Lancaster, Cheshire and Durham all had separate Palatine courts, and other royal functions in England were delegated to Councils of the North and the Marches. An added issue was the Welsh language - much stronger at the time. The government of Elizabeth I began the process that led to the demise of the Cornish language, by refusing to allow a separate Prayer Book in Cornish. However, Cornwall was much smaller , and a similar policy would have been impractical in Wales at the time. As it was, the religious situation developed rather differently in Wales, and at the time, religion played a major role in defining national identity.

Ultimately it is up to the people of Scotland to decide what they want to do.. Even if they do vote for independence, I would not see why they still would not retain close ties..

I thought this may interest some of you - especially, perhaps, if you have Scottish ancestors, or are interested in language differences.

As you might expect, the Electoral Commission (an independent, non-partisan body) have issued booklets outlining the referendum procedures. Most people will read these in English, with some, mainly in the Western Isles, reading in Gaelic. (They are also available in some immigrant languages)

However, what may also be of interest is a version that's been produced in Lowland Scots (sometimes called Lallans). Historically, this would be seen as a dialect of English - and it is obviously close to English, though it can be quite hard to understand by people not used to it. Today, pride in this national tradition has led to some regarding it as a full language in its own right, rather than a dialect. Strictly speaking, a booklet might be considered unnecessary - since people who speak it don't normally read it, but read books, newspapers, etc, in standard English, even if the way they pronounce it contains quite marked differences. But if you would be interested in seeing how the language enthusiasts would argue Scots should be written, here is a link to their version of the booklet:

So my charity donated money to a school and I along with two other members attended their school year opening ceremony. The headmaster told us that the First Minister visited them last year out of the blue.

Today is the day of the referendum. Early accounts suggest turnout has been exceptionally high - well over 80% in most counties, and a remarkable 96% in Falkirk. This is far in excess of the typical voter turnout in ordinary elections.

Clackmannanshire have declared first - and voted "no", by a clear margin. They are a small county - in the middle belt near Stirling - smallish towns, not open country. Interestingly, they currently have a Nationalist representative in the Scottish Parliament, but he couldn't carry the referendum vote.

The total vote is what counts, and a vote in Glasgow, for example, could swamp the vote in several small counties, so the result is still uncertain - but reports suggest that the "no" campaign looks the more confident that the bigger counts are going their way.

Whatever happens, their will be major constitutional changes in the Union. The three main pro-Union parties agreed together to back the UK government's promises of a big shift of tax and policy powers to the Scottish Parliament (effectively, full self government inside the Union), and this will inevitably require a sorting out of law making and policy powers in the other parts of the UK as well.

Carrie Underwood Fans is an unofficial fan site dedicated to Nashville recording artist Carrie Underwood. Carrie Fans is in no way affiliated with Carrie Underwood, Arista, Arista Nashville or JRecords. All registered trademarks are property of their respective vendors.